Child support - should they be made to pay?

[flubdub]

This topic is very pertinent in mine and my family's life, so I will put down the way I see it.

Both parents are equally responsible for creating a life.

If you don't wish to create a life, use contraception. 'She said she was on the pill' or similar is no excuse. If not sure, use rubber.

HOWEVER - we should all be aware that contraception is NOT 100%, sometimes it fails. (I know this first hand; I was on the Pill when my son was conceived). In these instances, BOTH parents are still responsible for creating that life - they did both choose to have sex after all.

I see no reason why a non-resident parent should NOT be responsible for child support. They created the life, so why should they not be responsible? Access, or lack of, for whatever reason, is not an excuse. A child doesn't suddenly cost nothing to raise because of access issues.

Those who choose not to see their child are already failing that child in that way, so why should they abandon them financially as well?

Those who say that the resident parent is 'bitterly using the child as a weapon, not allowing access' are often twisted individuals who have shot themselves in the foot with their own unreasonable behaviour.
Those who are unfit (for whatever reason) to look after their own children are also failing them in this way and should be made to take some responsibility; paying towards their upkeep would be an obvious thing to do.

So all excuses aside (believe me, I've heard plenty of them, and been accused of plenty of things along the way),
Children are not just little prizes that can be discarded because irresponsible people can't be bothered. Those responsible for making them need to follow through on that responsibility - when one of those 'parents' is not there for WHATEVER reason, they need to get their head out of their arse and support the upbringing of the lives they have created. Otherwise it's the children that lose out, and more often than not have to be supported by the rest of society.

OP - the person you mention who has transferred all his assets to his wife to avoid paying for his own children is pathetic. Those children need to be fed and clothed and he's just being selfish and disgusting in refusing to take responsibility. HOWEVER having also seen first hand how greedy some divorce settlements can get and how little an ex husband can be left with to live on after paying the ex each month, I can totally see why some may do it.

The law is completely inadequate for dealing with cases like this.

Sorry if I have rambled - irresponsible people with excuses just grate on me.

Can i just say, thats not always true. The only way my OH "shot himself in the foot" was by leaving her when she cheated, and got with me. I knew her very well for a year beforehand, so i havnt been fed tall tales either. Im sorry to say, but sometimes it is just the mother being an arse.

 

[flubdub]

My views are this. If the mother denies access, why should she get anything from the father? She won't allow him to see his children, yet she wants his money? Don't think so sweetheart lol. Ahhh this is a horrible topic for me as this is the situation my OH is in and as a result hasn't seen his son in 3 years yet still pays 18% of his wage to her before tax. Sorry if I have offended anyone with this view but I truly despise mothers who keep the father from seeing the kids to be spiteful and vindictive. She doesn't want him around? Fine. Then she can raise-- and pay for-- the child on her own.

He still helped create those children and should support them. Goodness knows, I know how it feels to be out of pocket because of OH paying high sums of maintenance to his ex, and she is a twisted and bitter woman too. But the fact remains, maintenance payments are not payments in return for visitation. They are payments for the upkeep of children he has created.

I also know what it's like to be lied about and receive literally NO support. Without intending to be offensive in any way, it is very difficult to know who caused what in a relationship breakup, and goodness knows there are plenty of men out there who pull the 'but she's bitter and has stopped me seeing the children' card, when in actual fact their behaviour has been rather less than perfect.

Not seeing a child is no excuse for binning your responsibilities to them. Those children will grow up and make up their own minds, and those who have washed their hands of them will have to live with that long beyond the time of any dispute with their ex.

I do know what caused their breakup hun, I was there And I literally mean I was there the whole time, for three years, as I lived first with the mother and then my OH. She was a junkie who removed access every time OH didn't pay more than what he was required to. She bragged about it to me every time she 'stuck it up him.' Needless to say I was on my OH's side--and when he became my OH, which the mother set up as she wanted him off her back and I was the perfect distraction-- I was horrified by what lengths she went to.
She has been caught on camera smoking crack in the middle of a big city, which was shown to the police when OH tried to get custody of their son. She has numerous drug convictions. Yet they still said he got nothing. Fair? I think not. She gets his money to spend on drugs? Even more unfair. I know without a doubt that none of that money goes on their son's upkeep.
If the father must contribute, even in those circumstances, would vouchers not be suitable instead? That way it can be ensured the child is benefiting from the money, as they are supposed to, and the mother is not spending it solely on herself like in this case.
Again sorry if I come off heartless to mothers who receive nothing and deserve to. They are not the mothers I am angry at right now.

 

[CharlieKeys]

My OH has a daughter from a one night stand (she worked for his mum and she had been going on for months how all she wanted was another baby and anyone would do), she told him she was on the pill (which I have told him he was stupid for not putting something on the end of it) but she lied straight to his face, slept with hin when she knew she'd be ovulating and then text him 4 weeks later saying she was pregnant.

She then stopped him from going to the scans, wouldn't allow him there for the birth and then had hte nerve when he went over to see her to say he was a shit dad during her pregnancy and that he was never there for her and he never wanted to be - which was a lie because he asked over and over again to go to her appts etc but she never contacted him. We met a month after she was born and the texts she sent him were disgusting. He lived in Clacton at the time for work and she lived in Southend - takes about 2 hours max to get there - luckily he was at my house at the time which is about a 30 min drive and she text saying, 'if you want to see her you have 45 mins to get here.' I had to drive him (considering we'd only been together 3 weeks) and she then moaned at him because he was 10 minutes early?!?!?!

Anyway, the story is she turned round and said she wanted NOTHING to do with him, no money, no contact nothing - and then when she found out we were having a baby, she went to the CSA, the letters went to his old address and bamn 2 months before our baby was born (the month we were getting our pram, cot etc) he was slapped with a £600 bill taken directly out of his wages with no knowledge at the time as to why.

He phoned up and asked about contact and the CSA said it was nothing ot do with them. Now the thiing that gets me is, my OH isn't on her birth certificate (it's clear he's the dad) but there is no 'proof' he is - so a) why can they just take money out of his account just because she has said he is and b) she wanted NOTHING to do with him and therefore I don't think he should have to pay HER. That money he gives each month doesn't go on the daughter, because the week after she has her money, photos go up of her on the p*ss with her friends .... so to me the money is going on her getting wasted and it's just two fingers up to my OH who works REALLY hard for his money. I think it's out of order - he wants to see his daughter so much but just can't afford to pay the legal fees and she has the right ot take money each month.

Don't get me wrong - I'm up for him providing for his daughter - I just don't think her mother should get the money.

 

[tallybee]

Can I just say that while I definitely empathise with those who have described very difficult and shitty situations, every one of them is a reason not to have unprotected sex with someone we don't want to make a baby with. None of them constitute a reason to abandon the resulting defenceless children, who surely will suffer enough given the shittiness of the situation, and do not deserve in any way to be punished for the fallout between the two people who shagged and created them.

This is coming from someone who a) has a crap fob who pays nothing and b) has an OH with a psycho ex who is 'entitled to' everything. I know how it feels, to feel wronged, believe me. But in NO circumstances is it the children's fault, and unfortunately no matter how crappy the ex is, when the children are young the only way to provide for them is to pay support to the parent with care - you can't give an infant the money to spend for themself. Once they're out of education, support liability stops anyway.

People have mentioned vouchers - perhaps that might be an idea worth looking at, but unless it was specifically for certain things (which would seem dictatorial to me), then the ex would still be able to spend them on things for themself.

Please note - I'm not trying to preach at all, we all have our opinions on this because of parts of our pasts that could be considered 'mistakes' (my children will never be described that way, but the relationships that they came from... well.) I just think it can be all too easy to lose sight of the fundamental point because of background crap.

 

[annawrigley]

Can I just say that while I definitely empathise with those who have described very difficult and shitty situations, every one of them is a reason not to have unprotected sex with someone we don't want to make a baby with. None of them constitute a reason to abandon the resulting defenceless children, who surely will suffer enough given the shittiness of the situation, and do not deserve in any way to be punished for the fallout between the two people who shagged and created them.

This is coming from someone who a) has a crap fob who pays nothing and b) has an OH with a psycho ex who is 'entitled to' everything. I know how it feels, to feel wronged, believe me. But in NO circumstances is it the children's fault, and unfortunately no matter how crappy the ex is, when the children are young the only way to provide for them is to pay support to the parent with care - you can't give an infant the money to spend for themself. Once they're out of education, support liability stops anyway.

People have mentioned vouchers - perhaps that might be an idea worth looking at, but unless it was specifically for certain things (which would seem dictatorial to me), then the ex would still be able to spend them on things for themself.

Please note - I'm not trying to preach at all, we all have our opinions on this because of parts of our pasts that could be considered 'mistakes' (my children will never be described that way, but the relationships that they came from... well.) I just think it can be all too easy to lose sight of the fundamental point because of background crap.

Agreed, I can't see it ever working tbh. It would have to be done completely on a case-by-case basis which I dont think they have the time or resources to do. Some people might need money for food, bills, nursery fees, rent, it'd be different for every person what they need help with

 

[CharlieKeys]

Oh he knows he should have used protection, and we want money to go towards his daughter but he'd rather have the money to buy her nappies and clothes and food rather than seeig this pictures go up the weekend she gets the money and she's out on the p*ss - to me that's not what the money goes on! The only reason she went to the csa (because she literally has evey benefit going and she even had sex with another man before my OH to get "pregnant" who she claims nothing from!) was because she was jealous me and my OH got together and that we got Pregnant - we know this because she told a friend who is also friends with MIL as they worked together!


My mum wet without the whole time she got my dad's money - every penny he ever put in her account went straight on me and my brothers - which is how it should be!

 

[flubdub]

Can I just say that while I definitely empathise with those who have described very difficult and shitty situations, every one of them is a reason not to have unprotected sex with someone we don't want to make a baby with. None of them constitute a reason to abandon the resulting defenceless children, who surely will suffer enough given the shittiness of the situation, and do not deserve in any way to be punished for the fallout between the two people who shagged and created them.

This is coming from someone who a) has a crap fob who pays nothing and b) has an OH with a psycho ex who is 'entitled to' everything. I know how it feels, to feel wronged, believe me. But in NO circumstances is it the children's fault, and unfortunately no matter how crappy the ex is, when the children are young the only way to provide for them is to pay support to the parent with care - you can't give an infant the money to spend for themself. Once they're out of education, support liability stops anyway.

People have mentioned vouchers - perhaps that might be an idea worth looking at, but unless it was specifically for certain things (which would seem dictatorial to me), then the ex would still be able to spend them on things for themself.

Please note - I'm not trying to preach at all, we all have our opinions on this because of parts of our pasts that could be considered 'mistakes' (my children will never be described that way, but the relationships that they came from... well.) I just think it can be all too easy to lose sight of the fundamental point because of background crap.

Agreed, I can't see it ever working tbh. It would have to be done completely on a case-by-case basis which I dont think they have the time or resources to do. Some people might need money for food, bills, nursery fees, rent, it'd be different for every person what they need help with

How do you get vouchers for electric, water, gas? All of which you need with a LO. The money doesnt just go on shoes and clothes for the baby.

 

[annawrigley]

Can I just say that while I definitely empathise with those who have described very difficult and shitty situations, every one of them is a reason not to have unprotected sex with someone we don't want to make a baby with. None of them constitute a reason to abandon the resulting defenceless children, who surely will suffer enough given the shittiness of the situation, and do not deserve in any way to be punished for the fallout between the two people who shagged and created them.

This is coming from someone who a) has a crap fob who pays nothing and b) has an OH with a psycho ex who is 'entitled to' everything. I know how it feels, to feel wronged, believe me. But in NO circumstances is it the children's fault, and unfortunately no matter how crappy the ex is, when the children are young the only way to provide for them is to pay support to the parent with care - you can't give an infant the money to spend for themself. Once they're out of education, support liability stops anyway.

People have mentioned vouchers - perhaps that might be an idea worth looking at, but unless it was specifically for certain things (which would seem dictatorial to me), then the ex would still be able to spend them on things for themself.

Please note - I'm not trying to preach at all, we all have our opinions on this because of parts of our pasts that could be considered 'mistakes' (my children will never be described that way, but the relationships that they came from... well.) I just think it can be all too easy to lose sight of the fundamental point because of background crap.

Agreed, I can't see it ever working tbh. It would have to be done completely on a case-by-case basis which I dont think they have the time or resources to do. Some people might need money for food, bills, nursery fees, rent, it'd be different for every person what they need help with

How do you get vouchers for electric, water, gas? All of which you need with a LO. The money doesnt just go on shoes and clothes for the baby.

I know thats what I mean, thats why I can't see it working!

 

[ShanandBoc]

Can I just say that while I definitely empathise with those who have described very difficult and shitty situations, every one of them is a reason not to have unprotected sex with someone we don't want to make a baby with. None of them constitute a reason to abandon the resulting defenceless children, who surely will suffer enough given the shittiness of the situation, and do not deserve in any way to be punished for the fallout between the two people who shagged and created them.

This is coming from someone who a) has a crap fob who pays nothing and b) has an OH with a psycho ex who is 'entitled to' everything. I know how it feels, to feel wronged, believe me. But in NO circumstances is it the children's fault, and unfortunately no matter how crappy the ex is, when the children are young the only way to provide for them is to pay support to the parent with care - you can't give an infant the money to spend for themself. Once they're out of education, support liability stops anyway.

People have mentioned vouchers - perhaps that might be an idea worth looking at, but unless it was specifically for certain things (which would seem dictatorial to me), then the ex would still be able to spend them on things for themself.

Please note - I'm not trying to preach at all, we all have our opinions on this because of parts of our pasts that could be considered 'mistakes' (my children will never be described that way, but the relationships that they came from... well.) I just think it can be all too easy to lose sight of the fundamental point because of background crap.

Agreed, I can't see it ever working tbh. It would have to be done completely on a case-by-case basis which I dont think they have the time or resources to do. Some people might need money for food, bills, nursery fees, rent, it'd be different for every person what they need help with

How do you get vouchers for electric, water, gas? All of which you need with a LO. The money doesnt just go on shoes and clothes for the baby.

Surely some kind of system could be put in place where the vouchers could be use for utilities or rent or something? Not exactly how that would work?

 

[flubdub]

Or even what if you wanted to treat the child? Surely you're allowed to use the dads money for that if you wouldnt otherwise be able to.

 

[ShanandBoc]

Well the money you would save from using the vouchers surely could be used for a treat? I only thought the vouchers would be a good idea in some circumstances to make sure the money got used correctly x

 

[pinklightbulb]

Yes the voucher thing was my idea lol. I envisioned that they could be used for/accepted by most places in place of cash money which is FAR more easily spent on drugs than a voucher would be. I know I feel very strongly about this topic. I don't feel the father of a spiteful MOB who is hindering/denying access should have to pay if she is that determined to have nothing of him in baby's life (see my previous comments for my exact feelings on this topic) but if he MUST then food/electric/etc vouchers that make up half and the rest of C/S in cash money would be an adequate compromise surely as I said before? Then MOB has some cash money that could theoretically go on rent/non-voucher-possible things, and the rest is non-cash money that is much harder for her to blow on drugs/alcohol which I know OH's MOB does.

 

[tallybee]

Yes the voucher thing was my idea lol. I envisioned that they could be used for/accepted by most places in place of cash money which is FAR more easily spent on drugs than a voucher would be. I know I feel very strongly about this topic. I don't feel the father of a spiteful MOB who is hindering/denying access should have to pay if she is that determined to have nothing of him in baby's life (see my previous comments for my exact feelings on this topic) but if he MUST then food/electric/etc vouchers that make up half and the rest of C/S in cash money would be an adequate compromise surely as I said before? Then MOB has some cash money that could theoretically go on rent/non-voucher-possible things, and the rest is non-cash money that is much harder for her to blow on drugs/alcohol which I know OH's MOB does.

You'd never be able to stop folks spending vouchers on booze and fags... where I used to live there was a shop that some people went to because they'd let them spend their milk tokens on booze and fags

Money that got saved by this method could just as easily get blown on street drugs.

I still stand by the statement that if somebody is that bad then they shouldn't have custody. I know what you've said about her being sneaky and lying to the authorities, but that imo is all the more reason to keep at it until somebody with the power to do something about it listens.

 

[pinklightbulb]

Yes the voucher thing was my idea lol. I envisioned that they could be used for/accepted by most places in place of cash money which is FAR more easily spent on drugs than a voucher would be. I know I feel very strongly about this topic. I don't feel the father of a spiteful MOB who is hindering/denying access should have to pay if she is that determined to have nothing of him in baby's life (see my previous comments for my exact feelings on this topic) but if he MUST then food/electric/etc vouchers that make up half and the rest of C/S in cash money would be an adequate compromise surely as I said before? Then MOB has some cash money that could theoretically go on rent/non-voucher-possible things, and the rest is non-cash money that is much harder for her to blow on drugs/alcohol which I know OH's MOB does.

You'd never be able to stop folks spending vouchers on booze and fags... where I used to live there was a shop that some people went to because they'd let them spend their milk tokens on booze and fags

Money that got saved by this method could just as easily get blown on street drugs.

I still stand by the statement that if somebody is that bad then they shouldn't have custody. I know what you've said about her being sneaky and lying to the authorities, but that imo is all the more reason to keep at it until somebody with the power to do something about it listens.

If OH had the money to keep dragging her back through court I'm sure he would hun He just could not afford to take her back again after it cost so much the first couple of times. He is not entitled to Legal Aid as he earns too much so unless money started falling from the sky he wasn't going to get anywhere. It's awful but after CPS showed up and found nothing it was going to look bad for Oh continually calling them, he would have been a 'nuisance' to them.